It Was Never About the $84,000: How We Earned the Right to Seek Punitive Damages in a Broker Commission Case

In most cases, a plaintiff decides what to plead. Punitive damages are different. Under section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes, “no claim for punitive damages shall be permitted unless there is a reasonable showing by evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages.” The plaintiff has to ask the court for permission to amend the complaint, and must support that request with evidence.

“no claim for punitive damages shall be permitted unless there is a reasonable showing by evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages.”

Section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes

The standard the jury ultimately applies is demanding. A defendant may be held liable for punitive damages “only if the trier of fact, based on clear and convincing evidence, finds that the defendant was personally guilty of intentional misconduct or gross negligence.” § 768.72(2). Intentional misconduct means “the defendant had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of the conduct and the high probability that injury or damage to the claimant would result and, despite that knowledge, intentionally pursued that course of conduct, resulting in injury or damage.” § 768.72(2)(a).

“only if the trier of fact, based on clear and convincing evidence, finds that the defendant was personally guilty of intentional misconduct or gross negligence.”

Section 768.72(2), Florida Statutes

That definition tells you what a punitive damages proffer has to do. It must show knowledge, intent and a deliberate choice, defendant by defendant. Anger about a lost commission does not meet that standard. A documented plan does.

Our client, a licensed broker, brought a buyer to a Miami-Dade property and negotiated with the seller’s agent. The court later found, in granting summary judgment that our client was the procuring cause of the sale, that he “was intentionally excluded from negotiations by [the defendants] in order to prevent him from obtaining his commission.” The court found that the buyers “used the fictitious company [the buyer’s company] and [the buyer’s sister], who is a licensed real estate agent, to hide the purchase from Plaintiff,” and that “[w]ithin hours of [the buyers] telling Plaintiff they were no longer interested in the property, they directed [the substitute agent] to contact the seller’s broker to make an offer on the property that Plaintiff procured under the fictious company [the buyer’s company].” (Order on Summary Judgment, Mar. 9, 2026.)

Those findings describe the anatomy of the scheme. First, a false statement: the buyer told our client he was done with the deal. Second, a substitute: a different licensed agent, the buyer’s sister, to stand in our client’s place. Third, a disguise: an entity that did not yet exist, listed as the buyer, so our client would not see the name on the contract. Fourth, the payoff: at closing, the commission went back to the buyers as a credit, with a small fee to the substitute agent.

We organized the proof the way a fraud case is proved: by time, by act and by actor. The heart of it was a single morning. Our client relayed the seller’s counteroffer and was told the buyers were walking away. Less than two hours later, an offer at the seller’s number arrived through the buyer’s sister, in the name of the new entity. The closing statement then showed the commission credited back to the buyers.

Each act tied to a person. The buyer made the statement that ended our client’s involvement. His partner signed the contract. The sister submitted the offer and took a fee. The entity was the vehicle. That mattered because section 768.72 asks whether each defendant was “personally guilty” of intentional misconduct, and because a company can be liable for punitive damages only on the showings listed in section 768.72(3), including that it “actively and knowingly participated in such conduct.”

At the hearing, we framed the issue the way the statute does. As we told the court at the outset, “we don’t want people scamming other people. And when somebody pulls off a scam on somebody else, that’s where punitive damages are relevant.” And in closing: “this isn’t a drunken driver case where somebody died. It’s a question of how do we want people doing business in South Florida.” (Hr’g Tr. 17, 88, Feb. 26, 2025.)

The court held an evidentiary hearing on February 26, 2025. Our client testified and walked the court through the morning the deal was taken from him, the text messages and the closing statement. He told the court: “I realized [the buyer] contacted the listing agent two hours after he told me that he was no longer interested in buying the property.” (Hr’g Tr. 50.) The documents came in as exhibits: the text messages, the contract and the related transaction records.

The defense did not call a witness. The court reminded the parties where the burden sat: “the burden is on the plaintiff. There is no burden on the defendant.” (Hr’g Tr. 80.)

The main defense argument was that a commission dispute is a contract dispute, and that a plaintiff cannot turn a contract claim into a tort to reach punitive damages. The court took that argument seriously. It said from the bench that it was “very interested” in the economic loss argument “[b]ecause this is all -- this entire complaint is based upon a contract.” (Hr’g Tr. 80 to 81.)

Our answer was that the fraud had nothing to do with the terms of any contract. It was about how our client was removed from the transaction: “the fraud in the inducement here is not about a material term within the agreement. It was how they excluded him from the transaction. And that’s why the independent tort doctrine here takes away from the economic loss rule.” (Hr’g Tr. 81.) The lie, the substitute agent and the disguised buyer were acts outside any contract, aimed at taking money that belonged to someone else.

The court granted the motion as to all defendants and all of the tort counts. From the bench, it explained: “This was not gross negligence. This was intentional, pre-planned, conceived actions. So I do believe that, as to the tort actions -- I guess it’s 7 through 13 -- the plaintiff has established, by clear and convincing evidence, the intentional misconduct. No doubt in my mind about that.” (Hr’g Tr. 92.)

The written order, entered March 19, 2025, found “that Plaintiff made a reasonable showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that a jury could reasonably find that Defendants’ intentional misconduct warrants punitive damages,” that the “actions were intentional, pre-planned, conceived actions,” and that the defendants “acted in concert to prevent Plaintiff from obtaining his commission from the subject real estate transaction.” Nothing in the order turns on the size of the commission. Every finding is about conduct.

A year later, the court granted summary judgment that our client was the procuring cause of the sale, so the commission itself was no longer in dispute. The May 2026 trial was about the scheme: fraud in the inducement, tortious interference and civil conspiracy. The jury heard the same story the court heard at the punitive hearing, measured it against the clear and convincing standard, and returned a verdict that included $28 million in punitive damages. Post-trial proceedings are ongoing.

We represent brokers and business owners who were cut out of deals they made happen. We start with the timeline, follow the money to the closing statement, and build the case so a judge and jury can see exactly who did what. If you were cut out of a transaction anywhere in Florida, call us at 305-748-3789. Meetings by appointment only.